I actually comment the main parts of my code before I write the code. Reason being is I like to get the general layout of the code down first and then add further comments as I go along to explain my reasoning *to me*.

I don't know how long it's going to be before I come back to a piece of code and nothing annoys me more than having mental clutter in my mind. I don't want to have to *remember* what why or how certain bit of code does what it does. I just want to pull up my code and explain it to myself and say "thanks me of the past for considering me today". Coders that don't explain what they are doing in their code are just hard to work with.

Well commented code helps code look beautiful and flow like poetry. When you look at code you can see almost immediately if it is going to be painful to modify. I try to put as much back onto the machine as I can, like using database design tools so I don't have to keep stuff in my mind.

I use Nassi-Shneiderman mixed with pseudo-code on paper to do a design (I'm getting better at UML tools - so soon I hope to upgrade this part of my coding practise) and when I'm happy with that I move to comment before writing the actual functional parts of code, increasing the detail of the comments as I go along. I used to be shy about my code but now I'd be embarrassed if I didn't comment my code - because it's not polite to my colleagues. Comments mean I don't have to waste time trying to remember where I was up to as it's simple for me to compare it with my design and away I go.

Might take away some of the risks others have already mentioned...

The right image will enhance your treatment by others. I remember working with casually dressed telecom workers while my employer required a dress shirt and tie. It was interesting to see how much I was respected. The telecom workers were not treated with the same level of respect. Ever since that time, I always make sure my image represents my value as a business asset.

think about it, free T-Shirts, no ironing. Sounds pretty good to me, why would I want to wear out my clothes.

The real issue of concern for me would be that many uniforms are associated with either semi-skilled jobs (fast food) or positions that require special garments to perform work (soldiers, firefighters). Most help-desk people that I've known (and the one I used to be) think of themselves as office professionals. What message does the uniform send to the non-IT staff with whom the help desk has contact. Clearly, you don't want to send messages that amount to either "semi-skilled" or "willing to move filing cabinets."

I'm remembering the BOFH episode with the branded shirts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/11/bofh_and_the_art/

Given how IT staff get harassed to fix everything, and blamed for everything broken, I would suggest an idea floated during my days as a university student.

See, we had these "Programmers On Duty", or PODs, many of whom were volunteers, who would look at your program, and attempt to help you find what was wrong. This was pretty much a thankless job, and anything you broke, and they couldn't fix, was considered their fault. (This was the late 70s era of punched cards, and computer printouts, with actual terminals a rare and coveted tool -- the POD had an office with, you guessed it, a terminal -- a CRT to boot, so one would not have to keep trying to use the back of discarded printouts in the DECwriters. The attraction of POD duty was access to that terminal, in hopes it would be a slow day.)

A bunch of us thought that PODs should be issued distinctive uniforms as well: superhero-style costumes actually. Ostensibly this was to distinguish them as members of a rare breed: people who could debug programs quickly. In fact, the intent was to shield their identity lest the be pestered to provide help while off duty.

You're all missing the real point. Airport security has nothing to do with actual security. It is the government's way of responding to criticism that they're doing nothing.

After past incidents (especially 911) criticism of the government was severe. Their reaction is to do something, anything. In fact the more inconvenient and the more in your face it is, the better the evidence that they're doing "everything possible."

When the next attacks occur, government can duck the blame by saying, "look how many dollars and how many man hours we threw at the problem. What more do you want?"

I just listened to Obama's statement this afternoon on the Christmas attack. What a bunch of bureaucratic double talk and utter crap. Don't believe me? Look at the transcript of his statement when it appears. Then imagine it being delivered by a mid level manager.

References to Flesh Gordon will get you modded up.

My experience with the latest version of Chrome on Ubuntu 9.10 & PCLinuxOS 2009 (.10?) has been an enjoyable one. I've had no problems with Flash and use an ad blocking extension & Firebug (which I like better than Firebug in Firebox). No need to beat the dead horse, but yes, it's sooo much more responsive than other browsers and the efficient use of screen real estate appeals to me as well.

It's hard to say when a campaign is actually successful. They might be ads that people like but if they're not ads that get people to buy the product, then they're failures. Remember the Taco Bell Chihuaha? That was one of the most memorable campaigns in history, but Taco Bell was losing sales during the course of that campaign so it was pulled.